Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Bateman, 547 P.2d 6.

61 citing documents.

Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(“[T]he judicial interpretation of a court rule becomes as much a part of the rule as if the words were originally included therein.”) ( , ).
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 115 P.3d 121 Ariz. 2005
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 115 P.3d 121 Ariz. 2005
Due process requires that a criminal offense be “defined in terms that [people] of average intelligence understand” and be clear enough to give “sufficient warning that [people] may conform their conduct to its dictates.” State v. Bateman, 113 Ariz. 107, 109-10, -9 (1976).
State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Crisp 855 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Crisp 855 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(judicial application of statute prohibiting lewd and lascivious acts to particular behavior precludes vagueness attack); , cert.
State v. Tykwinski 824 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Tykwinski 824 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Noble 808 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(the crimes of sodomy and lewd and lascivious acts may be committed by married persons or consenting adults; consent is no defense).
In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
See, , (ordinance prohibiting lying, sleeping or otherwise sitting on public right-of-way is not vague); , cert.
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Schad 788 P.2d 1162 Ariz. 1989
State v. Emond 786 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Emond 786 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
our supreme court stated: “The right of privacy is not unqualified and absolute and must be considered in the light of important state interests.” [Emphasis added.]
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action B-10489 727 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Serrano 702 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Serrano 702 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Book-Cellar, Inc. 679 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Book-Cellar, Inc. 679 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
citing Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21 , 94 S.Ct.
State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc. 649 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1982
State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc. 649 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1982
The right to sexual privacy “exists within the context of the intimate sexual relations between consenting adults in private.” , cert.
State v. Limpus 625 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Limpus 625 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
State v. Marquez 618 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1980
State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
State v. Reinhold 597 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1979
Next, , an accomplice instruction should have been given by the trial court and failure to do so constitutes prejudicial error.
State v. Pickett 589 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1978
State v. Pickett 589 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1978
See, e. g., , (dealing with a lewd and lascivious act specified as fellatio only in the Court of Appeals decision), cert.
State v. Varela 587 P.2d 1173 Ariz. 1978
State v. Varela 587 P.2d 1173 Ariz. 1978
The basic rule in reviewing a statute for- vagueness is to determine whether the offense is defined in terms that people of average intelligence can understand, , , cert.
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1978
Sodomy can be committed with the victim’s consent, , cert.
State v. Quinn 592 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Quinn 592 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Stewart 576 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Stewart 576 P.2d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Powers 571 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1977
State v. Powers 571 P.2d 1016 Ariz. 1977
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Sustaita 583 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Sodomy can be committed with the victim’s consent, , cert.
State v. Youtsey 570 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Youtsey 570 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Broadfoot 566 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1977
State v. Broadfoot 566 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1977
State v. Owens 562 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977